If any changes are made regarding celibacy–and I think there should–it should be clear that the changes are not made to “solve” any current crisis. If mandatory celibacy is lifted, it should be made clear that it is a response to the “theology of the body,” that the Church’s attitudes towards both sexuality and to fasting before Mass have changed so as to obviate the original purposes of celibacy.OTOH, “only Nixon could go to China,” and “Ford should have pardoned the draft dodgers.”If there was a Pope better suited to lift mandatory celibacy and *not* have it look like another Vatican II “this is the big break for progressives; the floodgates are open” moment, that Pope is Benedict XVI.

Our priests are usually married, although our bishops are celibate monastics. Such a change might result in what you see in the East, a special place of honor and leadership for the priest’s wife (matushka, khouria, presbytera, and we really need an English title but so far have none). Our priests tend to stay put (in a parish) more than Latin priests, possibly because they have families (at least in part). We have a similar movement to restore the female diaconate, although we’re far more conservative, and even if everybody is on board, the change will take years. There is also the question of what role she would take. Liturgically, there’s plenty for her to do (deacons have a larger role in our services than they do in the West), but it’s her non-liturgical role that is problematic, since what was historically the role of a deaconess is largely obsolete, due to cultural changes.

Chris, I think you are incredibly confused if you think the East has women deacons.While celibacy is not historically fundamental to the identity clerics, being male is. There is a history of ordaining married men, but nowhere in Christianity, except the Protestants and Protestants only in the last 50 years or so, have women become clerics of any order.I could handle a married priesthood. There is a precedent for it. There is absolutely no precedent for the ordination of women. To compare the possibility of a married priesthood to ordaining women in any capacity is beyond the realm of historical and theological ignorance.

You are correct. I think he misunderstood what I said, which was that there is a movement to restore the female diaconate, which is (particularly for us) a very different thing from having female deacons. It isn’t a new movement, nor is it “feminist” in nature. It is grounded in the history of the church, and many have supported it. But change happens only very slowly among the Orthodox, so I don’t look for it to happen soon. See here for a good article:http://www.contemporaryorthodoxy.com/2009/03/restoring-female-diaconate.html

Pledger,There is ample evidence that the Eastern Churches ordained women to the office of deacon and such ordination riates are in the Apostlic Constitutions (see the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04651a.htm)In 2004 the general synod Greek Orthodox voted voted to resume its ancient practice of ordaining women.There is also substantial documented historical evidence that women were once ordained priests and possibly even bishops.See, for example, the books by Gary Macy and Osiek:www.amazon.com/Hidden-History-Womens-Ordination-Medieval/dp/0195189701/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1C4GPHBVJ7T6F&colid=WU5XV4B0S24Owww.amazon.com/Ordained-Women-Early-Church-Documentary/dp/0801879329/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3KFYH86V7GE14&colid=WU5XV4B0S24OMacy quotes in full Latin ordination rites for ordaining women.God Bless

elm,They were ordained.The ordination rites in the Apostolic Constitutions for women were ordination rites.Ditto the ordination rites for women which Macy quotes in his book from official Latin rite pontificals.God Bless

Like to see what basis he makes this claim it is going to be looked at. I certainly do not see it from anything I have read from the Vatican. Also, the priests who have come to serve over the last 25 years or so, the JPII priests, show in every poll by strong numbers to favor celebacy. They seem to know who they are tied to and need nothing else. Why the left seems to be ever enchanted with married priests and women priests as somehow a solution to the need for more priest is beyond me. The recent survey everyone was so excited about that was supposed to show the none religion group growing so fast, also revealed that those churches with married male priest and women priest are dying on the vine. Even when they added openly gay priests it did not solve their problem. We have something very special in that men are being called by God to a celebate life to serve God. The dioceses with the most orthodox bishops are seeing their seminaries growing rapidly. Now that we have had the seminaries inspected and the right changes made, I suspect that the system that produced homosexuals that were attracted to teen age boys which gave us most of the crisis is resolved. It is interesting that those bishops who might be most eager to see changes were also involved in many of the most severe cases of abuse in their areas. No, we are blessed with our celebate priests and should continue praying for them every day. As this generation of priests moves up the line, the Church will move more toward these long held truths and away from the liberal bent church many seek. We are almost through the long tunnel and light is ahead.

I agree with Hathaway:”If any changes are made regarding celibacy–and I think there should–it should be clear that the changes are not made to “solve” any current crisis.”Ordaining married men has not done much for priestly vocations in the Eastern Church.But, let’s not jump the gun.Cardinal Egan qualified his statement referring to geography and culture. I believe this plan might work in cultures that still support traditional families. But, could it work our hedonistic and divorce culture? We don’t really need news reports of infidelities in a marriage of a priest and his wife or divorces. Since Catholics are not much different in the divorce ratio from other Americans, will priests be any different? Unless of course only older second-career men are ordained.And are we ready to put more than $1 in the collection plate each Sunday to support a priest’s family? At present 2 or more priests share a rectory which also serves as an office. That would have to change. Finally, no longer can the bishop move his priest when necessary. Is he going to put the young priest with his wife and 3 kids in the tough crime ridden and poverty stricken neighborhood even though the priest seems best suited for that place? What happens when his wife refuses to move her kids there?There are many many problems….as to female deacons…why is that being brought up here? It only serves to prove that the issue of a married priesthood is an agenda pushed by dissenters who ultimately seek the impossible of the ordination of women.[Meanwhile, The Apostolic Constitution uses a different Greek word to distinguish the “ordination” of the deaconess from the deacon. (It is more akin to the “ordination” of acolytes and subdeacons. Also her function is clearly different.]

First, we don’t have the shortage problem the Latins do, and yes, our divorce rate for priests is nearly non-existent(and note that we only strongly discourage divorce, not forbid it). Second, not being able to move a priest around is a good thing. It creates stability for the parish when the priest, the matushka, and their children are part of it, instead of temporary visitors (a note to our liberal commenter: Our priests cannot marry after they are ordained). Third, the married priesthood is not the innovation: Celibate priests are (read your church history). Finally, I brought up the female diaconate to make a point: The push is a conservative one, to restore an ancient and well established diaconate, and not to push some Gaia-worshipping feminist agenda. We don’t have those, no more than we have a “modernist” movement, and thank God for that.

And are we ready to put more than $1 in the collection plate each Sunday to support a priest’s family? At present 2 or more priests share a rectory which also serves as an office. That would have to change.There are many good reasons for the celibate priesthood. The idea that they are “cheap labor” is not only not a good one, it is offensive. It is a sin against justice to tell a man he cannot marry because it allows him to be paid less. Meanwhile, The Apostolic Constitution uses a different Greek word to distinguish the “ordination” of the deaconess from the deacon. (It is more akin to the “ordination” of acolytes and subdeacons. Also her function is clearly different.]I think not. I beleive, like in many languages, words have a feminine and masculine tense. The feminine word used for ordination of women deacons is not the same word as for male subdeacons.The Armenian Apostolic Church is currently ordaining women as deacons, with no confusion that they are deacons.

If the Church ever dispense with mandatory celibacy, she should only do it if she reclaims and safeguards the beauty of celibacy, of virginity for the kingdom’s sake. Sometimes those agitating for a married priesthood — not those from the East mind you, they aren’t agitating even — put forward a view of priests as sacramental dispensers rather than spiritual fathers. Now it is obvious that married men can also be spiritual fathers. But it is not obvious to me that you have an understanding of spiritual fatherhood where you have made the priesthood into a job or a task. And that is something those who advocate for a married priesthood seem prone to.I have questions — I guess I see paradoxes, but they don’t make me think that we should end mandatory celibacy. It does seem strange that the Church recognizes that there are Catholic men who have both vocations to the priesthood and to marriage. Does this mean that by accident of birth in a particular rite you can have both calls or only one or other? In other words, a man who is an Eastern Rite Catholic can have both calls but a man who is a Latin Rite Catholic can only have either/or? That seems strange to me. I realize it is a mystery but I don’t know how the Church can hold both together. What does this suggest about celibacy? Does this mean that if you are a man in the Latin Rite who is called to the priesthood you are automatically called to celibacy? Or could there be men who have the call to priesthood but are not called to celibacy? There are obviously men called to celibacy who are not called to the priesthood. And, if it is the case that someone could have the call to priesthood, but not celibacy, what does that mean then for those men who are called to the priesthood but who are not called to celibacy? Perhaps this is like the paradox of the Church’s teaching on birth control: we are called to responsible parenthood and to be open to life, contraception is always wrong, and yet until the last 40 years, the only morally licit and reliable way to space children was to abstain fully. I find that interesting, paradoxical, but it doesn’t make me doubt the Church’s teaching. It makes me scratch my head.On the other hand, has the Latin Rite understood celibacy too juridically or too much as a discipline? When people talk about the practical benefits of celibacy, I agree with them (in that sense I disagree with how strong Msgr. Albacete speaks against that line of thinking, though I understand where he is coming from, in this pretty good piece http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9500E3D6123BF932A05750C0A9649C8B63), and yet I think this can’t be the reason for celibacy. If it is simply a practical concern, then we could just try to add more and more married priests to compensate for the loss of availability with married priests. It isn’t simply a practical concern, but there is a practical benefit. It has to be the theological meaning of virginity. And this is what most of those who want to allow married priests in the Latin Rite do not understand. They don’t understand what a friend told me a few weeks ago: we are all called to a position of viriginity vis-a-vis the world. A married man is called to that. A priest is called to that. That to me, to agree with Albacete, is the value of the celibate priesthood. Its value is really in its utter uselessness (let me explain!), in that it is so gratuitous. Celibacy isn’t useful, it is hard, it isn’t something people want in this day and age. So let’s get rid of it, people scream! Come on, who is going to consecrate the eucharist — as if that were the value of the priest. These people don’t get spiritual fatherhood, they don’t get that virginity freely chosen and lived with passion affirms the gift of creation. It says to the world, “This is all the Lord’s. It is from him and we are going back to him.” Now, there are married men who live this, but virginity says this in a special way. And that is what seems lacking in much of the discussion of ending priestly celibacy. It seems not to get past that utilitarian level. That’s the point. There isn’t any darn utility in it. And that is why it is so needed — more needed today than in any day perhaps because we are gluttons, lechers, and we cannot see that this is all from Him!So before we ever talk about practical solutions of allowing older married men to be priests, before we talk about ending celibacy, why don’t we retrieve the riches of virginity. Furthermore, when people point to the East and say, “Hey, they do it,” do they ever consider that they might have this worked out better theologically? You can have married priests in the East — not just because of custom — but because of how that custom has understood married priests and the relation between monks and priests, and the rich theology of mystery that is present within the Eastern tradition. We in the West sometimes seem to be functional dualists. I think we need to retrieve the liturgy, the body, the tangible things, and this will strengthen virginity. Then perhaps we can talk about married priests. But my guess is then we won’t have to talk about ending celibacy, because lo and behold the Lord will provide through the witness of richly lived virginity. Finally, I think it is inaccurate to call married priests or celibate priests innovations. From the beginning you have had both and certainly an understanding of the value and beauty of virginity. It hasn’t always been a juridical norm in the West, but that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t valued or perhaps even privileged.

Lets be honest. There is nothing whatsoever in the functions of the permanent diaconate that women could not do.In fact, Catholic women already do every single function that male deacons do.We could start ordaining women deacons tommorrow and have them do just what male deacons do without any change in Catholic understanding of the diaconate whatsoever.God Bless

In fact, Catholic women already do every single function that male deacons do.Right. That explains why I keep seeing Catholic women proclaiming the gospel at mass, delivering homilies, baptizing babies, presiding at weddings and funerals, and blessing the faithful at Liturgies of the Word. Sheesh. Dcn. G.

Thank you, Cheeky Lawyer, for you thoughtful comment. But before I comment, let me say something I want all to understand.I am Orthodox. I am, in no way, advocating for a married clergy (or female diaconate) in the Roman Catholic church. I do not want to be perceived as sticking my nose into others’ business. I am merely commenting. Now, speaking of, you said:”Furthermore, when people point to the East and say, “Hey, they do it,” do they ever consider that they might have this worked out better theologically? You can have married priests in the East — not just because of custom — but because of how that custom has understood married priests and the relation between monks and priests, and the rich theology of mystery that is present within the Eastern tradition.”One of the differences between East and West with the most effects upon our churches is the role of ascetics. This is poorly thought out, so please, pardon me if I stumble, but in the West, ascetics were separate from the parishes and the laity. In the East, ascetics have always been at the very core of Christianity. As Orthodox (or Byzantine — I don’t mean to be exclusive, but there just isn’t a good word that includes both), we revere our monks and nuns, certainly, but all of us view their lives as something we should strive to emulate. Our fasts are so much more rigorous than those in the West at least partly for this reason. We are asked, if not expected, to read not only the Church Fathers, but the Desert Fathers as well; most of our spiritual tradition is monastic.You have, I think, a very valid point here, one I shall have to further consider. Does the “closeness” of our parish priests to the monastics make a married priesthood feasible, where it may not in the West?Again, please do not think I am being intrusive. (And Father, I hope you weren’t insulted when I said on another article that you sounded like an Orthodox priest. I meant it as a compliment.)As for the comment that the Roman church could, and I quote, “start ordaining women deacons tommorrow and have them do just what male deacons do without any change in Catholic understanding of the diaconate whatsoever,” that may be true, but I doubt it. It is the issue of what role a deaconess would take on that is one of the reasons we have not yet restored the female diaconate, and deacons in the East have, as I understand it, “more to do” than those in the West.Ecclesial change, even when it is restoring an ancient custom that is well documented, should not be undertaken lightly, nor without great debate and prayer. The female diaconate ceased to exist, and we must fully study the reasons before we can restore it.Christ is among us!

“There is nothing whatsoever in the functions of the permanent diaconate that women could not do.”Again the problem of viewing ordination — to priesthood or diaconate — as a simply being licensed to dispense or do certain things. (I have to give some credit on that last thought to George Weigel in one of his books.) There is a deeper mystery here. A mystery of service and a mystery of the Bride of Christ.

My dog does everything my cat does (eats, sleeps, sniffs its own butt), so is my dog a cat?As is mentioned, ordination isn’t a permit to exercise certain functions. It is an ontological shift in identity. Chris, I am very familiar with the Greek Orthodox’s decision and it is very unclear to what status the women are being given. It is worth noting the document you cite never uses the phrase “ordain” (although paraphrases or translations may use it), but rather the word “kathosiosi”…to bless or to consecrate.The rite that is used is the “Rite of ordination of a deaconess” because no other rite exists, since the “ordination” of deaconesses hasn’t occurred in a widespread form for centuries.There is much debate on what the orthodox deaconess did. If she was anything like the deaconesses in apostolic times, they were “ordained” primarily to assist in the baptism of women, which occurred with the elect nude, for modesty’s sake. It is also worth noting that the women who were deaconesses may not have been ordained in apostolic times, but rather were women with a spirit of service (diakonia). Being a deaconess did not necessarily make them a member of the Order of Deacons.With all of that said…what on earth does female deacons have to do with a married priesthood? I think we’ve gotten off the topic.

This is going to sound sexist to some but it’s not meant to be…People don’t know what to do with a male deacon let alone throw female deacons into the mix. There are those out there that the top of their heads will detatch and hover like a cartoon character. Slowly is the way to go…Also… I am Ruthenian Byzantine turned Roman Catholic. You are spot on “Cheeky”!!!

Rightwingprof,I really appreciate your comments. Thank you for pointing out the depth of asceticism in the East and its closeness to the parish. That is very illuminating. I do think the theology you point to is precisely why we need the Church to breath with both lungs. The West is out of kilter without the East.CL

I think part of the difference is that politically, in the West, monastics usually lost when they came up against the hierarchy, and in the East, they usually won, if that makes any sense. Monasticism is cemented into the very fabric of our church. It is the rule for Orthodox parishes to offer Great Vespers at least on Saturday evening (confessions follow), in my parish, every Wednesday and Saturday evening. On Sundays, Matins is the first service, and runs directly into Divine Liturgy, with no break. Eastern Catholics, as I understand, fell out of the practice of offering regular Divine Services (Liturgy of the Hours) as a result of Latinization, but they are undergoing a movement to purge Latinisms and reclaim their rites and heritage, and more parishes are offering regular Divine Services as we do. We fast approximately half the year. Our bishops are monastics. These are only three of the ways monasticism is woven into our church, and not walled off (although ironically, we have no monastics who are not cloistered).Married clergy work for us because we have always had married clergy. That doesn’t imply that adopting married clergy would, for you, be the success it has been for us, because for you, it would be a profound alteration. Also, and please don’t take this the wrong way because I’m not casting stones, one of the most unfortunate results of Vatican II was the collapse of discipline, something we still have in great abundance. Without discipliine within the hierarchy, in a church where the laity feel free to thumb their noses at their priests, priests at their bishops, and bishops at the Vatican, making such a fundamental change could be disastrous, because the existence of married clergy requires great discipline (there is a reason almost none of our priests divorce, and it isn’t because the church forbids divorce). And discipline takes us back to monasticism, from which it springs.And married clergy would be far more of a change that most Roman Catholics would realize, given that you do not have married clergy. It fundamentally changes the character of the priest, profoundly affects the relationship between the priest and his parishioners, and introduces (to you) completely novel elements into the parish: The priest’s wife and children. My parish began as a campus mission. Locals began to attend rather than drive over the mountains to one of the Orthodox parishes (there are 61 within a 60-mile radius), which attracted more locals, until a number of the parishioners pooled their money and bought an old Methodist church building in 1980. When it was a mission, one of the local Orthodox priests with his own, separate parish was responsible, but when it became a parish, the church sent us Father John from Texas (there is still a campus mission, which is Fr. John’s charge, but since the church is right off campus, there are no separate services on campus). He has been with us ever since. It is the norm for priests to remain for years assigned to the same parish. This is only one of the many changes married clergy might bring, and (I would think) should be studied thoroughly before any change is made.Let us pray that change will only be implemented after a great deal of study and prayer, and not out of a political agenda, lest change shred the fabric of the Roman church. I may be Orthodox, and not Roman Catholic, but we are not islands, and when the Roman church is wounded, so are we all.Christ is among us!

Deacon Greg – spot on! Not only is their a difference in function but in nature of the ordained. sadly, though, as to where you see women proclaim the Gospel, preach the homily, bless the faithful, etc. just may depend on where you go to mass.

61 Orthodox Parishes within a 60 mile radius? Really. Wow!Thanks again rightwingprof for that. I pray that we breath with both lungs. I want the Latin Church to be less Latin, but I am sure the East could benefit from the West as well.

A discipline of the Church is not something arbitrarily imposed. It is an outgrowth of doctrine. Despite rightwingprof’s assertion, celibate priesthood is not an innovation. Has he ever heard of St. Paul the Apostle?A celibate priesthood is based on the example and counsel of Jesus Christ. [Moreover, it is form the successor of St. Peter to bind or loosen in this matter.] One of the great fruits of the celibate priesthood has been the great missionary work. Celibate priests were more free to pick up and travel and so preach Christ. Since Sts. Cyril and Methodius, 2 celibates, you don’t often hear of Eastern Rite missionaries or since the 8th c. see many peoples converted by Eastern missionaries. Katherine totally misunderstands if she thinks I am arguing for cheap labor. I am precisely suggesting that Catholics must rethink their giving so as to be just if there are married men ordained as priests. (At present, this would also help younger men with families who believe they are called to the permanent diaconate or permanent deacons who wish to quit their secular work for solely ecclesiatical work.) Moreover, she can “think not” all she wants, but the reality is that words for “ordination” of “deacons” and “deaconess” are different in the ancient AC and Didascalia. And the the documents make it clear that a deaconess functioned for the sake of propriety, especially at all-nude female baptisms. (Interestingly, the Apostles in Acts did not create deaconesses to minister to widows!) “Deaconesses” did not ever have a Eucharistic role.Finally, from the Catholic viewpoint the Armenian Apostolic Church doesn’t get everything right. It also rejects the divinely established role of the Pope as well as other infallible teachings of the Catholic Church. Just because they do something doesn’t mean Catholics should!

I live in Pennsylvania. Huge numbers of Rusyn immigrants came to work the coal mines, many of them Eastern Rite Catholics, along with many other Slavs, most Orthodox. At the turn of the century, the local bishops’ policy toward the Eastern Rite Catholics was forced Latinization, and the result was the creation of the only Orthodox jurisdiction in the US without a mother church in the Old World, the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese (ACROD), formed by huge numbers of Rusyns who refused to give up their rite and traditions, and became Orthodox. Today, there are Byzantine Catholic parishes (Eastern Rite Rusyns) and ACROD parishes all over central and western Pennsylvania. Most of the Orthodox and Byzantine parishes are not city parishes, but small town and country churches. Hence the large number of Eastern parishes in my area. Ukrainians, both Eastern Rite and Orthodox, settled in the eastern part of the state, and Christian Arabs, Orthodox and Melkite, in the northeast and across the river in New Jersey, and also in southern New York.The Byzantines and the Orthodox here are on very good terms. The Orthodox regularly host Byzantines at conferences and retreats. The Latins seem to mostly ignore the Byzantines, and vice versa. It’s a testament, I believe, to the American cultural trait of not looking back and nursing old grudges that they co-exist and cooperate with each other when their ancestors in Europe are often killing each other. They aren’t, of course, in communion with each other, and they haven’t initiated a formal dialogue, but both the Byzantine and Orthodox Metropolitans meet and issue statements together. Note what the Byzantines say on their diocesan home page (byzcath.org):”Byzantine Catholics are Orthodox Christians who embrace full communion with the Church of Rome and its primate, Pope Benedict XVI, the successor of St. Peter, the first among the Apostles. Sadly, however, the break in communion between the Orthodox East and the Catholic West of 1054 still affects us today, as our communion with Rome means we are not in full communion with our mother Orthodox Church. We pray for the day when the Churches will again be one.”As do we.Christ is among us!

Bottom line, Egan may have started this discussion, but it ain’t going to happen that I can see in my lifetime. We are not heading left with the church, but more conservative. I think Egan might simply have been having a senior moment. Or maybe as he stepped aside, he just wanted to stir the pot one more time.

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.

Previous Posts

This blog is no longer activeThis blog is no longer being actively updated. Please feel free to browse the archives or:
Read our most popular inspiration blog
See our most popular inspirational video
Take our most popular quiz

Big day in the Big Easy: 10 new deaconsDeacon Mike Talbot has the scoop:
10 men today were ordained as Permanent Deacons for the Archdiocese of New Orleans. This group of men was formally selected on the day the evacuation of New Orleans began as Hurricane Katrina approached. The immediate aftermath of the storm for this class would be